b-greek-digest Tuesday, 6 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 738
In this issue:
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark and Midrash
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: 1 Peter 2:13
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Ending of Mark
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
BG Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Greek NT papyrus (sc)rolls
Re: Mark 16:8 German footnote
Re: A quick critical apparatus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 12:42:27 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Stephen Carlson wrote:
> Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> > Although I am a little frustrated with the book ending with GAR, I have
> > noticed that PHOBONTES GAR is the standard reaction in Mark to miracles. And
> > while we usually translate PHOBOUNTO as they were afraid, there is also a
> > sense of "awe" at the miraculous in Mark. I think the ending "for they were
> > in awe" is appropriate for the gospel of Mark. It is a definite pointer to
> > the resurrection.
>
> Are you perhaps thinking of a different verb? I can't find the phrase
> "FOBONTES GAR" in the entire New Testament.
>
> I did a search and found six instances of FOBW/FOBOUMAI + GAR in the NT:
>
> Mk11:18 EFOBOUNTO GAR AUTON
> 16: 8 EFOBOUNTO GAR.
> Lk19:21 EFOBOUMHN GAR SE hOTI ...
> 22: 2 EFOBOUNTO GAR TON LAON
> Ac 5:26 EFOBOUNTO GAR TON LAON
> 2Co12:20 FOBOUMAI GAR MH ...
>
> Only Mk16:8 lacks a predicate, though predicates are not required with
> this verb (cf. Lk1:30).
I think we can concede that Tim erred; it would in any case have been
FOBOUNTES GAR; moreover the active FOBW means "terrify, frighten."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 95 10:44:43 PDT
Subject: Re: Mark and Midrash
WHile we are ranging a little far from Greek (and I'm enjoying the
whole thing), I'd just add a small bibliographical note on Midrash and
the NT. I'd like to recommend (not implying this is the only worthwhile
book on the subject) _Gospel Perspectives_, vol 5 (I think), published
by JSOT Press. The entire volume is devoted to the possible nature
and extent of midrash in the canonical Gospels.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 12:55:34 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
I really dislike appending all this pre-history of the discussion, but
perhaps it would help anyone who hasn't seen what preceded it, so I leave it.
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Stephen Carlson wrote:
> Carl W Conrad wrote:
> > I will comment only on this last paragraph of Tim's characterization of
> > Mark's gospel, with which I generally concur. I think I have commented
> > on-list previously about this GAR and the objection that a Greek sentence
> > cannot end with a GAR and therefore 16:8 cannot be the original ending of
> > Mark. Such an assertion betrays an ignorance of Greek or at least a want
> > of appreciation of the working of postpositives. GAR can never be the
> > first element in a statement;it is regularly placed AFTER the first word
> > of a statement to indicate that the statement is an explanation of what
> > was previously stated. Inasmuch as the one word EFOBOUNTO includes both
> > subject and predicate, it is a complete clause--except for the fact that
> > the Greek language abhors a sentence or clause without a connective just
> > about as surely as nature abhors a vacuum. The only place for the GAR is
> > after EFOBOUNTO; EFOBOUNTO GAR is a complete sentence, calling for no
> > further narrative explanation because it is itself the explanation for
> > why the women didn't tell anyone what they had seen and heard. Q.E.D.
>
> This analysis is exactly correct, but I don't think that the usual
> objection is that it is impossible for a Greek sentence to end with
> GAR. John 13:13 is a well-known example. The usual objection is
> that (a) such constructs are extremely rare and (b) that EFOBOUNTO
> commonly takes an object. This calls for suspicion.
>
> My own feeling is that if EFOBOUNTO is to meant to be a complete
> clause, I would have rather expected a participle. Perhaps, Mark is
> being emphatic here, and that could also account for the rarity of
> GAR with a bare verb. John 13:13 is certainly emphatic. For this
> reason, I doubt that the other alternative endings were original.
> None of them supply an object for EFOBOUNTO, which would counter
> the aforementioned objection.
I think your suspicion that EFOBOUNTO GAR may be meant to be emphatic is
probably right. I should add, however, although I have not tried to do a
search of NT texts for GAR*, that short clauses with GAR are VERY common
in older Greek as parenthetical explanations for something just asserted.
For that reason I think the participle would be less likely.
Theoretically, it would be better Greek, but: (a) we really don't look to
Mark for better Greek, do we? and (b) I really think that the short
parenthetical clause with GAR is fairly common idiom. I'm curious enough
about it to run a word-check; report to follow.
*GAR: Some probably are familiar with the believe-it-or-not true story of
a quondam U. of Chicago professor who had a woman grad student assist him
in lengthy research on the particle GAR. The young lady in question came
to be known as this professor's "gar goyle." Know anything about this,
Paul Moser?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Mark W Lucas <markl@stpetes.win-uk.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 18:58:34
Subject: Re: 1 Peter 2:13
>Mark:
>
>Thought you might be interested in reading the translation as found in the
>New World Translation, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,
>the translation there in 1 Peter 2:13 translates "anthropine ktisei" as
>"human creation", which does go perfectly with the context of the scripture.
>
>Hoping this may help in your research.
>
Whilst this is a very literal translation I wonder if it is not,
actually, misleading (I can feel shades of the "literal" vs
"dynamic equivalence" coming on :-) ).
Reading the words 'human creation' in English suggests to the reader
that the adjective describes the instrumentof the creative activity
ie. creations by human beings. This does not fit the context at all
since Peter has *people* with (God given) authority in view. Also
the noun 'ktisis' (as I suggested in my earlier post) almost always
refers to the creating act of _God_.
It would be better, IMHO and in the light of recent commentaries, to
translate 'anQropwn ktisei' such that the adjective describes the
*object* of the creating activity ie. the *type* of thing created.
Thus something like 'God's creation that is human' or, more simply,
'human beings' would be the best translation. Does this work?
(I apologise if my linguistic terms are inaccuarate or misleading.
I am not really a linguist. I hope, though, that the sense is
clear. Please feel free to correct me if they are wrong).
Any further suggestions?
Mark Lucas (London, UK)
Feel free to mail me direct on
markl@stpetes.win-uk.net
or compuserve 100025,1511
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 13:34:26 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Stephen Carlson wrote:
>
> > My own feeling is that if EFOBOUNTO is to meant to be a complete
> > clause, I would have rather expected a participle. Perhaps, Mark is
> > being emphatic here, and that could also account for the rarity of
> > GAR with a bare verb. John 13:13 is certainly emphatic. For this
> > reason, I doubt that the other alternative endings were original.
> > None of them supply an object for EFOBOUNTO, which would counter
> > the aforementioned objection.
>
> I think your suspicion that EFOBOUNTO GAR may be meant to be emphatic is
> probably right. I should add, however, although I have not tried to do a
> search of NT texts for GAR*, that short clauses with GAR are VERY common
> in older Greek as parenthetical explanations for something just asserted.
> For that reason I think the participle would be less likely.
> Theoretically, it would be better Greek, but: (a) we really don't look to
> Mark for better Greek, do we? and (b) I really think that the short
> parenthetical clause with GAR is fairly common idiom. I'm curious enough
> about it to run a word-check; report to follow.
I never got as far as the TLG disk: BAGD s.v. GAR f.2 lists "short,
explanatory, parenthetical clauses," and cites a few in the NT, as well
as elsewhere. Guess what we find for a neat parallel to 16:8?
Mark 1:16 KAI PROAGWN PARA THN QALASSAN ... : HSAN GAR hALIEIS. To be
sure, this little clause is preceded by a participial phrase,
AMFIBALLONTAS EN THi QALASSHi. I think we could have expected another
participial phrase here, such as hALIEIS ONTAS. Instead we get the short
GAR clause, exactly as in 16:8.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 16:27:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> Mark 1:16 KAI PROAGWN PARA THN QALASSAN ... : HSAN GAR hALIEIS. To be
> sure, this little clause is preceded by a participial phrase,
> AMFIBALLONTAS EN THi QALASSHi. I think we could have expected another
> participial phrase here, such as hALIEIS ONTAS. Instead we get the short
> GAR clause, exactly as in 16:8.
So much for the participial problem, but this clause is still not as
short as the one in 16:8. 1:16 has the expressed predicate, after
*gar*, exactly where in 16:8 we have nothing.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 16:17:17 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Ending of Mark
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>
> This is very interesting. Thanks, Larry, for the bibliographical rfc
> also. And, by the way, the term "opisthograph" is new to me (but I really
> haven't dealt with textual tradition questions--as should be obvious from
> my ill-placed comments on this subject on this list), but does this mean
> something different from what "palimpsest" means?
An opisthograph is a text written on the outer side of a scroll.
Larry Hurtado
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 17:25:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> My original post saw saying that Mark didn't _need_ a
> resurrection pericope to be a meaningful witness to the
> gospel or the resurrection, and my point was that Paul
> could form a theological construct on the resurrection
> w/o having a such a pericope/miracle story that presents
> a bodily risen Jesus.
I guess I'm losing the thread here, since Mark *does* have a resurrection
pericope, complete with a missing body of Jesus (16:6), unless one
pursues the possibility that the _neaniskos_ is intended to be a
human grave-robber or architect of the resurrection fraud.
> My understanding is that in 1 Cor 15, when Paul says
> Jesus was raised "on the third day according to the Scripture"
> he is speaking of the Jewish eschatological 3rd day after the
> Judgment when God's kingdom comes in fullness. And he
> doesn't say exactly what the witnesses saw.
Could you please explain more about the "Jewish eschatological 3rd day"?
> Indeed, all of the witnesses experienced the resurrection of Jesus,
> but no where does Paul say they experienced a resuscitated
> corpse of Jesus, which is the literal misinterpretation of
> the resurrection pericope (in my opinion).
This broaches an interesting point. There are 2 types of resurrection
operative in the NT. One is a miraculous raising back to ordinary life
of a dead person, with OT examples like Elijah and the widow of
Zarephath's son and NT examples like Jesus and Jairus's daughter. Usually
they are immediate resuscitations of a recently dead person, and only
occasionally are they made ghoulish (as in John 11 with the rotting
Lazarus). The other type of resurrection, going by the same name
(anastasis), is that originally envisioned for Judgment Day, the
permanent raising to life of people who may have been long dead. The
righteous rise in a "glorified" state (cf. Daniel 12.2-3
"Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some
to everlasting life, others to shame adn everlasting contempt. Those
who are wise/impart wisdom will shine like the brightness of the heavens,
and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and
ever"). Paul seems to be familiar with this idea (Romans 2.5-10; 1 Thes.
4.13-17) and he has no concern for a merely revived corpse/walking undead
zombie. That is why the Messiah is the "aparkhE" of the general
resurrection (1 Cor. 15:23), the only one who has truly been resurrected
(to glory).
It would be harder to make a similar case for Mark, but Jesus's body
there also seems to be glorified, not merely revived. Somehow the stone
has been rolled away from the tomb (something apparently requiring several
healthy people, cf. John 11:41) in Mark 16.4. Also, if he were merely revived,
surely he would have greeted the women himself and walked to the
disciples. Instead he "proagei," presumably by some sort of paranormal
transportation (Mark 16.7). And his absence in the meanwhile implies he is
somewhere else (not on earth).
> What the essence of the risen Christ actually was is a mystery
> (as well it probably should be), but if one reads Paul w/out the influence of
> the gospels, it is clear that he is unaware of the
> angel(s), the rich man's tomb, the guards, the stone.
He may have been, or he may have had a different resurrection story, but
as has been widely noted, Paul does not make the retelling of his
"euaggelion" the focus of any of his letters. For Paul there are
witnesses of Jesus, although his own "vision" is all glory and no
physicality (no eating, touching, etc., as in the gospels). I would
still assume Paul was familiar with something like our gospels'
resurrection stories, and perhaps the reason his own vision was so
ethereal was that he was aware of the "ascension" story. Naturally, if
Jesus had been revived without glorification and eventual detachment from
earth, would-be converts to Christianity would have asked Paul where they
could go to see Jesus in the flesh. So Paul doesn't emphasize the
historical event as much as their inner life of hope (Rom. 8.24-25).
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 95 16:50:39 EDT
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
Carl W Conrad wrote:
> Mark 1:16 KAI PROAGWN PARA THN QALASSAN ... : HSAN GAR hALIEIS. To be
> sure, this little clause is preceded by a participial phrase,
> AMFIBALLONTAS EN THi QALASSHi. I think we could have expected another
> participial phrase here, such as hALIEIS ONTAS. Instead we get the short
> GAR clause, exactly as in 16:8.
Concerning the two-word, parenthetical GAR clause in Mk16:8 --
1. If the concern is the frequency of short (i.e., not necessarily
just verb + GAR) parenthetical GAR clauses, then there is little
objectionable about the GAR clause in 16:8.
but
2. If the concern is the frequency of GAR clauses of exactly two words,
then it appears that the construction in Mk16:8 is quite rare and perhaps
defective.
So, which observation is more relevant?
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 16:41:57 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
I wish to emphasize again that in Paul, at least, and possibly for others
too, *resurrection appearances* (as distinguished by them from other
visions of the glorified Jesus) functioned *to accredit apostolic
witnesses* as well as to validate Jesus' resurrection: see 1 Cor 9:1;
15:1-7 (this is why the resurrection appearances form a closed list in
Paul). This may be relevant to a possible absence of
resurrection-appearance stories in Mark. Whatever is the case on this,
however, the res.-appearances function as I have indicated.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 18:11:14 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>
> > Mark 1:16 KAI PROAGWN PARA THN QALASSAN ... : HSAN GAR hALIEIS. To be
> > sure, this little clause is preceded by a participial phrase,
> > AMFIBALLONTAS EN THi QALASSHi. I think we could have expected another
> > participial phrase here, such as hALIEIS ONTAS. Instead we get the short
> > GAR clause, exactly as in 16:8.
>
> So much for the participial problem, but this clause is still not as
> short as the one in 16:8. 1:16 has the expressed predicate, after
> *gar*, exactly where in 16:8 we have nothing.
Quite frankly, the participle wasn't a problem to begin with. And now I
frankly don't understand what "expressed predicate" is still being sought
in 16:8. EFOBOUNTO is absolute: "they were afraid." There are plenty of
instances of FOBOUMAI used absolutely, e.g. Mk 10:32 (KAI EFOBOUNTO), in
the imperative twice in Lk 1:12 (MH FOBOU), Lk 12:32 (same). Schmoller's
Handkonkordanz cites numerous examples of the absolute use.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 20:47:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> Quite frankly, the participle wasn't a problem to begin with. And now I
> frankly don't understand what "expressed predicate" is still being sought
> in 16:8. EFOBOUNTO is absolute: "they were afraid." There are plenty of
> instances of FOBOUMAI used absolutely, e.g. Mk 10:32 (KAI EFOBOUNTO), in
> the imperative twice in Lk 1:12 (MH FOBOU), Lk 12:32 (same). Schmoller's
> Handkonkordanz cites numerous examples of the absolute use.
Carl, let's put it this way: the "gar" comes second in the sentence even
though it acts as a connective. It inverts its clause by coming second
and placing another word/phrase in front of itself. Therefore, in the
usual florid Greek, it is followed by several other words which connect
with the word before it. As in Mark 16:8 itself, "eikhen gar autas
tromos kai ekstasis" which has a nice balanced feel to it. To place it
last by itself is awkward - like ending a sentence with _de_ or _men_) and
even more so when it is preceded by nothing but a verb. It's true that phob-
doesn't need an express object, let alone subject. But it's all these
things *together*, all in one place, a multiple improbability, that makes
myself and others suspicious. Add to that the *possible* content
awkwardness (the abrupt ending), and it almost shifts the burden of proof
to those who feel satisfied by it.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 20:19:17 CST
Subject: BG Re: Mark 16:8
There are no other two word clauses (verb + GAR) in Mark, although BAG lists
several classical examples under FOBEW. Mark does know how to use GAR in
short sentences, however: twice he uses three word clauses with GAR (1:16 and
11:18) and seven times he uses four word clauses with GAR (1:38; 3:21; 5:42;
9:49; 14:70; 15:14; and 16:4).
FOBEW is used both transitively and intransitively. When it is used
intransitively, it does *not* take an object, so an object should not be
expected in such a case. It is not reasonable to suggest that just because
someone uses a verb in a transitive way elsewhere, he cannot use it
intransitively. Just because someone says "I ate my supper" does not mean he
cannot say "I am eating."
Please, please, let's not use the word "predicate" when we mean "object." A
predicate is the verb plus the object plus modifiers. It is driving the
linguist in me up the wall the see the word misused in this way. It has also
led to some confusion in postings because EFOBOUNTO *is* a predicate,
precisely because it is a verb. Thanks.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 20:33:22 CST
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Tim Staker wrote:
>What the essence of the risen Christ actually was is a mystery
>(as well it probably should be), but if one reads Paul w/out the influence of
>the gospels, it is clear that he is unaware of the
>angel(s), the rich man's tomb, the guards, the stone.
> All he says is that Christ was dead, was buried, and was raised by God.
> And this is enough for Paul to build his whole theology upon. And Mark
>doesn't need a resurrection appearance pericope
>to proclaim the resurrection. BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO HAVE
>NOT SEEN AND YET BELIEVE.
It is not at all clear the Paul is unaware of these items. Modern frame
theory in discourse analysis shows that people often omit items which they
think that the audience already understands. A speaker/writer simply gives
enough information to evoke the listener/reader's frame and all that
information flows into the reader's mind automatically. It is not necessary
to state all information that the reader already knows.
Paul shows that he is aware of the synoptic traditions of the life of Jesus
when he gives the account of the institution of the Lord's Supper in I Cor.
11:23-25. 38 of the 57 words (66.7% omitting the 11 words of introduction)
there are also found in Luke's account of the same.
Tim shows that he knows intuitively how frame theory works when he quotes from
the resurrection account of John in the discussion about Mark. He assumes
that we all know that he knows these words are not found in Mark. And we do.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 21:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> Quite frankly, the participle wasn't a problem to begin with. And now I
> frankly don't understand what "expressed predicate" is still being sought
> in 16:8. EFOBOUNTO is absolute: "they were afraid." There are plenty of
> instances of FOBOUMAI used absolutely, e.g. Mk 10:32 (KAI EFOBOUNTO), in
> the imperative twice in Lk 1:12 (MH FOBOU), Lk 12:32 (same). Schmoller's
> Handkonkordanz cites numerous examples of the absolute use.
Carl,
What do you think of the translation "They were in awe" argued for by WC
Allen?
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: Timothy John Finney <finney@csuvax1.murdoch.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 12:29:19 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Re: Greek NT papyrus (sc)rolls
P13 (about 300 AD) is a roll. There are one or two others among the Greek
NT papyri. See the latest edition of Aland's Kurzegefastliste.
Tim Finney
Murdoch University
Western Australia
------------------------------
From: Shaughn Daniel <zxmli05@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 06:42:44 +0000
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8 German footnote
FYI
DIE BIBEL. Einheitsuebersetzung der Heiligen Schrift. Altes und Neues
Testament. (Stuttgart, 1980). Footnote to Mark's ending:
=====begin quote=====
16,9-20 Dieser Abschnitt findet sich nicht bei den aeltesten Textzeugen. Er
ist eine im 2.Jahrhundert entstandene Zusammenfassung der in anderen
Evangelien stehenden Berichte ueber die Erscheinungen und Anweisungen des
Auferstandenen; er gehoert also inhaltlich zu Evangelienueberlieferung.
In einer altlateinischen Handscrift findet sich statt dessen folgende
Ergaenzung: Und sie berichteten alles, was ihnen aufgetragen worden war,
dem Kreis um Petrus. Danach sandte Jesus selbst durch sie vom Osten bis in
den Westen die heilige und unvergaengliche Botschaft vom ewigen Heil. Amen.
Bei einigen Textzeugen finden sich auch beide Zusaetze.
=====end quote=====
my translation:
16,9-20 This paragraph is not found in the most ancient textual witnesses.
It is a summary, which arose in the 2nd cent., of the reports in the other
Gospels concerning the appearances and instructions of the resurrected one;
thus, it belongs, regarding content, to a custom of the gospels.
In ancient Latin handwriting, instead of this [paragraph], we find the
following supplement: "And they reported everything, what had been
instructed them, to the circle around Peter. After that, Jesus himself sent
through them, from east to west, the holy and timeless message of eternal
salvation. Amen."
In some textual witnesses also, both additions are found.
Sincerely,
Shaughn Daniel
Tuebingen, Germany
------------------------------
From: Timothy John Finney <finney@csuvax1.murdoch.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 12:43:35 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Re: A quick critical apparatus
I am dismayed that my post concerning making a critical apparatus of the
Greek NT manuscripts has been taken as a slight against the IGNTP. This
is certainly not my intention.
My point, restated for the second time, is that if we cooperate we can use
the electronic medium and currently available computer tools to produce a
critical apparatus of the Greek NT mss quickly. It would have its own
pitfalls - namely, that it would include information from the manuscripts
alone (and not the valuable Patristic witnesses), spelling variations,
scribal blunders and so on as variants. But it would be a most valuable
launching pad for text critical work.
This critical apparatus would not include the Patristic witnesses.
However such information could easily be added. I agree completely that
the Fathers are extremely important in our attempts to reconstruct the
history of the NT text.
Are there people on this list who are interested cooperating in
transcribing the NT Greek manuscripts into machine-readable form? I am
convinced that this would facilitate significant advances in NT textual
criticism.
Tim Finney
Murdoch University
Western Australia
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #738
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu